G.G.SOHANI, Ag. C.J. - (1.)The order in this case will also govern the disposal of M.P. Nos. 2559/88, 2528/88, 2535/88, 2569/88, 2578/88, 2644/88, 3013/88, 2799/88, 2781/88, 2950/88, 2968/88, 3011/88, 2976/88, 2938/88, 3027/88, 3028/88, and 3032/88.
(2.)These are petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution. The material facts giving rise to these petitions, briefly, are as follows : A competitive entrance examination known as Pre-medical Test (P.M.T.) and Pre-Engineering Test (P.E.T.) for selection of candidates for admission to professional courses in medical science and engineering respectively, was held in May 1988 by respondent 2, the Vyavasayik Pariksha Mandal, M.P., also known as Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) constituted by the State Government. The examination was held in accordance with the Rules for entrance test (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed by the State Govt. in that behalf. These Rules are not Statutory Rules, but are framed by the State Govt. in exercise of the executive power of the State. One of the subjects prescribed for courses for which admission was sought by the petitioners, was General English. The Rules provide that marks obtained in the subject 'General English' would not be added to the aggregate, but a candidate must secure at least 25% marks in General English to qualify for admission to the aforesaid courses. The petitioners who had appeared for the aforesaid entrance examination, failed to secure 25% marks in the subject 'General English' and hence they were not selected for admission. Aggrieved by their result, the petitioners have filed this petition.
(3.)The first contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that by prescribing 'General English' as one of the subjects for the entrance examination, the Board acted arbitrarily and unreasonably. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Amisha Nagpaul v. State of Orissa, AIR 1988 Orissa 190. In reply, it was contended on behalf of the respondents by the learned Additional Advocate General that a reasonable knowledge of English language was absolutely necessary for prosecuting studies for courses for which admission was sought by the petitioners. Before we proceed to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, in this behalf, it would be useful to note certain facts which are not in dispute. As the number of seats for admission to medical and engineering institutions in the State is limited and a very large number of candidates apply for admission to the courses of study in these institutions, the Board, as directed by the State Govt., has been conducting a competitive entrance examination for selection of candidates for admission to these courses. In the State of M.P., though 'English' is one of the subjects prescribed for the High School Certificate Examination by the Board of Secondary Education, English is not one of the compulsory subjects for the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) is in the science group. With the introduction of 10+2 system of education in the State of M.P. from the year 1986, the academic requirement of eligibility for admission to the courses in question is that a candidate should have passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2), or an examination equivalent thereto as prescribed by the Rules. The question papers for the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M. P., are set both in Hindi and English and candidates have the option to answer questions in any one of the languages, Hindi, English, Urdu or Marathi. These facts are evident from the prospectus for the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination 1988, published by the Board of Secondary Education M.P., which was produced before us. It would be thus clear that in the State of M.P., a student who has passed the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination in the science group and is therefore, eligible for admission to the engineering and medical courses, has not acquired sufficient knowledge of English as a language of comprehension, because he has not studied'English' for the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination. Such a student, if selected for admission to the courses in question, would not be able to pursue his study properly, because however regrettable it may be, the fact remains that today text books for the degree courses in medical, science and engineering are in English and instruction is also imparted in English. That is why to judge the suitability of a candidate for admission to these courses, the Board prescribed General English as one of the subjects for the entrance examination held in May, 1988. The syllabus in English prescribed by the Board is somewhat similar to that prescribed for the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination in the subject 'General English'. The course prescribed by the Board in the subject 'General English' is (i) Reading comprehension; (ii) Grammar and Usage; (iii) Words, Phrases and Idioms, Comprehension and their use in sentences; (iv) Prefix, Suffix, Punctuation and Spelling; and (v) Letter Writing. The Board has further provided that selection for admission would be on merit on the basis of aggregate marks obtained by candidates in subjects other than 'General English' and that marks obtained in 'General English' by a candidate would not be added to the aggregate, but to qualify for admission, a candidate must secure at least 25% marks in 'General English'. It was contended that this requirement to qualify for admission, was absolutely unreasonable, because achieving excellence in English was at all not necessary, for passing the technical courses in question. It would really be a very sad day when obtaining 25% marks in any subject is considered to be a sign of having achieved excellence in that subject. The insistence on obtaining at least 25% marks by a candidate in the subject 'General English' to qualify for admission is only with a view to be assured that the candidate has some knowledge of English language to enable him to study the text books in English, if he is admitted to the courses in question. This requirement, as prescribed by the Board, cannot, in the circumstances of the case, be held to be arbitrary. It cannot also be held that the requirement is such as has no connection whatsoever with the object of the examination. We may, at this stage, usefully refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Javid Rasool Bhat v. State of J. and K., AIR 1984 SC 873.
"In the very nature of things, it would not be within the province or even the competence of the Court and the court would not venture into such exclusive thickets to discover ways out, when the matters are more appropriately left to the wise expertise of medical academicians interested in the quality and integrity of medical education and public administrators conversant with various administrative and socio-economic problems, needs and requirements. The Court's duty lies in preventing arbitrariness and denial of equal opportunity. The question as to the subjects in which an entrance test may be held is hardly a matter for the Court unless of course, the subjects are so arbitrarily chosen as to have not the slightest connection with the object of examination. Such a situation is not likely to arise as the authorities may be expected to act reasonably."
Judged in the light of the aforesaid observations, the action of the Board in prescribing 'General English' as one of the subjects for the entrance examination cannot be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. As observed by the Supreme Court in (Dr. Dinesh Kumar v. Motilal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, AIR 1986 SC 1877 students must have some knowledge of English as a language of comprehension, for otherwise they would not be able to pursue the courses in English language.